The White Ghetto

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

So a government that provides housing, education, healthcare and food for the poor (many countries do this to varying degrees) is actually promoting poverty even though it is providing the very things that, by your definition, eliminate poverty??

I know that's not what you're saying, but it's what your contradictions are implying.

If those things are provided for people, how is that expanding poverty?  It really is not that obvious to me...

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle,

So a government that provides housing, education, healthcare and food for the poor (many countries do this to varying degrees) is actually promoting poverty even though it is providing the very things that, by your definition, eliminate poverty??

I know that's not what you're saying, but it's what your contradictions are implying.

If those things are provided for people, how is that expanding poverty?  It really is not that obvious to me...

People in poverty (defined here as a lack of material goods) who are simply given the material goods may become lifted out of poverty, but they will become dependent on the entity that gave them the goods continuing to do so forever because they did not lift themselves out of poverty in a sustainable manner. The moment the subsidies end, they will fall back into poverty because they still don't know how to prevent themselves from being impoverished.

This is why IMHO safety nets, welfare, and charity need to be well-targeted to have any hope of succeeding. If you look at an impoverished person who is fundamentally healthy in mind and body, this is a person who is impoverished because they do not know the life skills that you and I do. Simply giving them the stuff they have the capacity to earn for themselves if they knew how does nothing to help them. It just turns them into a ward of the state, their mom, etc.

This is of course distinguished from aid to the mentally ill, physically disabled, etc. Those kinds of people really do have impediments to earning a living and dependence on other people is less unfortunate because they have fewer options.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

So a government that provides housing, education, healthcare and food for the poor (many countries do this to varying degrees) is actually promoting poverty even though it is providing the very things that, by your definition, eliminate poverty??

I know that's not what you're saying, but it's what your contradictions are implying.

If those things are provided for people, how is that expanding poverty?  It really is not that obvious to me...

No contradiction from me.

Yes, stealing from some and auctioning off the stolen goods through the democractic process certainly breeds dependancy and poverty.

It breeds the poverty because eventually you run out of other people's money. Look at the unfunded liabilites.

There is no contradiction in my position.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

So a government that provides housing, education, healthcare and food for the poor (many countries do this to varying degrees) is actually promoting poverty even though it is providing the very things that, by your definition, eliminate poverty??

I know that's not what you're saying, but it's what your contradictions are implying.

If those things are provided for people, how is that expanding poverty?  It really is not that obvious to me...

People in poverty (defined here as a lack of material goods) who are simply given the material goods may become lifted out of poverty, but they will become dependent on the entity that gave them the goods continuing to do so forever because they did not lift themselves out of poverty in a sustainable manner. The moment the subsidies end, they will fall back into poverty because they still don't know how to prevent themselves from being impoverished.

This is why IMHO safety nets, welfare, and charity need to be well-targeted to have any hope of succeeding. If you look at an impoverished person who is fundamentally healthy in mind and body, this is a person who is impoverished because they do not know the life skills that you and I do. Simply giving them the stuff they have the capacity to earn for themselves if they knew how does nothing to help them. It just turns them into a ward of the state, their mom, etc.

This is of course distinguished from aid to the mentally ill, physically disabled, etc. Those kinds of people really do have impediments to earning a living and dependence on other people is less unfortunate because they have fewer options.

Yes well said. This is how the poor are bred by the state. It is cruel because the promises cannot be kept. That's why I say all this government borrowing which enslaves the unborn, the inflation which raises prices on the poor is a cruel hoax being played on people to gain their support.

The government masters keep $0.50 of every dollar and say "gee look what I did for you"

Or as Browne always said....."Government breaks your legs, hands you a crutch and says look what I did for you".


Mentally ill, physically disabled are such a tiny portion there is no doubt they would be much much better cared for if we were wealthier and so much wasn't being handed to deadbeats.

Opposing welfare is to love people and the poor and unfortunate. It's to love them and actually think about real solutions rather than the mentally lazy non-solution of stealing.

Stealing, like all violence is an attempt to get something for nothing. Since something cannot come from nothing you know beforehand it's going to be a complete failure. Unless the goal is to create more poor. The war on poverty has succeeded in that.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

We can't run out of other people's money in a closed system... nor can you with the way our fiat monetary system works.

So if you can provide some reason why providing housing, food, education, and healthcare will collapse a society (into not being able to provide it for people going forward), I'm all ears... but based on where western civilization is at today, it doesn't appear that your argument holds much water.  Many very prosperous countries provide these safety nets to people.

[I Shrugged]

I'm of the opinion that it's hopeless.  Prosperity and democracy lead to overly-generous welfare, using the term very generally.  Eventually entitlements and programs become too much for the productive economy to bear, and a long slide begins.  Then hungry upstarts, countries on the rise, will take over.  Rinse and repeat.  I don't see a way out of it for the USA.

My way of dealing with it was to take a cue from Ayn Rand, and stop supporting the looters.  I sold my business, and structured my investments so as to incur extremely low taxes. 

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

We can't run out of other people's money in a closed system... nor can you with the way our fiat monetary system works.

So if you can provide some reason why providing housing, food, education, and healthcare will collapse a society (into not being able to provide it for people going forward), I'm all ears... but based on where western civilization is at today, it doesn't appear that your argument holds much water.  Many very prosperous countries provide these safety nets to people.

Ok money doesn't feed people or house people. Food and housing do. Peopel need to produce that. When you create so many dependants that the producers can no longer support them you've run out.

The expression has the word money in it but it's not meant to be taken litterally. Obviously, look at Zimbabwae. They didn't run out of money....they were using 100 trillion bills as wallpaper. It's a meaningless distinction though.

What good did having 100 trillion dollar bills do for the poor there? The poorest person was worth 100s of trillions.

[I Shrugged]

Kshartle,

We can't run out of other people's money in a closed system... nor can you with the way our fiat monetary system works.

So if you can provide some reason why providing housing, food, education, and healthcare will collapse a society (into not being able to provide it for people going forward), I'm all ears... but based on where western civilization is at today, it doesn't appear that your argument holds much water.  Many very prosperous countries provide these safety nets to people.

Like France?

[Kshartle]

I'm of the opinion that it's hopeless.  Prosperity and democracy lead to overly-generous welfare, using the term very generally.  Eventually entitlements and programs become too much for the productive economy to bear, and a long slide begins.  Then hungry upstarts, countries on the rise, will take over.  Rinse and repeat.  I don't see a way out of it for the USA.

My way of dealing with it was to take a cue from Ayn Rand, and stop supporting the looters.  I sold my business, and structured my investments so as to incur extremely low taxes.

We need to all listen to her. I disagree with her on plenty, but wow, she was brilliant and brutally clear, even in a 2nd language.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

We can't run out of other people's money in a closed system... nor can you with the way our fiat monetary system works.

So if you can provide some reason why providing housing, food, education, and healthcare will collapse a society (into not being able to provide it for people going forward), I'm all ears... but based on where western civilization is at today, it doesn't appear that your argument holds much water.  Many very prosperous countries provide these safety nets to people.

Ok money doesn't feed people or house people. Food and housing do. Peopel need to produce that. When you create so many dependants that the producers can no longer support them you've run out.

The expression has the word money in it but it's not meant to be taken litterally. Obviously, look at Zimbabwae. They didn't run out of money....they were using 100 trillion bills as wallpaper. It's a meaningless distinction though.

What good did having 100 trillion dollar bills do for the poor there? The poorest person was worth 100s of trillions.

Ok, so what you're saying is that there is going to be such a huge growth of the needy class that the productive class will either fall into it, or just leave, right?  Actually... it seems you think we're already there.

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

Also, if this was the case, I would expect to see a flattening of discrepancy of income... if being productive sucks so friggin' bad, and the moral hazards are so lucrative towards NOT being so, why are rich people becoming MORE and MORE wealthy compared to everyone else?  They must be masochists!

And more importantly, if welfare (and other social support) is so much better than working, why do you work so dang hard (I assume you do)?  This isn't rhetorical... legit question...

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

We can't run out of other people's money in a closed system... nor can you with the way our fiat monetary system works.

So if you can provide some reason why providing housing, food, education, and healthcare will collapse a society (into not being able to provide it for people going forward), I'm all ears... but based on where western civilization is at today, it doesn't appear that your argument holds much water.  Many very prosperous countries provide these safety nets to people.

Ok money doesn't feed people or house people. Food and housing do. Peopel need to produce that. When you create so many dependants that the producers can no longer support them you've run out.

The expression has the word money in it but it's not meant to be taken litterally. Obviously, look at Zimbabwae. They didn't run out of money....they were using 100 trillion bills as wallpaper. It's a meaningless distinction though.

What good did having 100 trillion dollar bills do for the poor there? The poorest person was worth 100s of trillions.

Ok, so what you're saying is that there is going to be such a huge growth of the needy class that the productive class will either fall into it, or just leave, right?  Actually... it seems you think we're already there.

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

Also, if this was the case, I would expect to see a flattening of discrepancy of income... if being productive sucks so friggin' bad, and the moral hazards are so lucrative towards NOT being so, why are rich people becoming MORE and MORE wealthy compared to everyone else?  They must be masochists!

And more importantly, if welfare (and other social support) is so much better than working, why do you work so dang hard (I assume you do)?  This isn't rhetorical... legit question...

Food stamp usage has doubled in 5 years.

Labor participation is falling.

More people are going on social security every year......it is set to explode.

Rich are getting richer because the QE has inflated the price of their assets.

Poor are getting poorer because the QE has made stuff more expensive.

Middle class is getting hurt for the same reason, plus regulations are killing businesses.

Welfare doesn't seem like a good alternative for me. But I'm pretty smart, have a simple, stress-free (for me) and lucrative job. This is not the case for many.

[goodasgold]

Kshartle,

Ok, so what you're saying is that there is going to be such a huge growth of the needy class that the productive class will either fall into it, or just leave, right?....

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe, France, Britain. The productive folks are fighting back in Britain. For evidence, just Google the hard-hitting (and devastating) new Brit TV documentary called "Benefits Street." It is an eye-opener for all but the most Krugmanesque tin foil helmeted.

[Pointedstick]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

Moving money from person A to person B gobbles up 17% of GDP! Om nom nom…

[goodasgold]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending

Welfare is welfare no matter what name the government uses to describe (or hide) it. PS, you are good at finding visual aids, so please post a graph of the U.S. gov's unfunded liabilities. It is a shocker.

[moda0306]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

SS is up because we have more retirees in general... not an overall growth in dependency.

The most recent spike is obviously a natural result of a financial crisis followed by recession and rampant unemployment.

[Pointedstick]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

[moda0306]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

So education hasn't really changed as a percentage of GDP since 1970.

Thanks for proving my point.

All we ever hear about is how out of control spending on this stuff is.

[Pointedstick]

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

I don't know how you can look at that graph and say, "hmm, not much growth." To me it looks like welfare's share of GDP rose from 12% to 17%. That's a 40% increase!!!

Obviously there are reasons for this increase. But I don't particularly think any of those reasons are good. Having more people dependent on the government for their basic expenses doesn't strike me as a good thing.

[moda0306]

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

I don't know how you can look at that graph and say, "hmm, not much growth." To me it looks like welfare's share of GDP rose from 12% to 17%. That's a 40% increase!!!

Obviously there are reasons for this increase. But I don't particularly think any of those reasons are good. Having more people dependent on the government for their basic expenses doesn't strike me as a good thing.

I must have pasted the wrong graph.  I was looking at your "welfare" one where spending was about the same as 1980.

"Entitlement" spending is heavily driven by demographics.  Not that this doesn't present a real problem, but it's more of a "quantity" problem than a "quality" one.  It's not a degredation of a class of society morally... more just a ton of people are getting old.

This is going to present problems for a society, to be sure, but all I see it as is an uncomfortable bubble of consumption that we might have trouble meeting from a production point of view, and some adjustments might have to be made....

... then it will go away.  It's just a demographic bubble, and maybe there will be more in the future, but it's not representative of some great lazy moral decline.

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

[moda0306]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

So education hasn't really changed as a percentage of GDP since 1970.

Thanks for proving my point.

All we ever hear about is how out of control spending on this stuff is.

... and how ridiculous it is that the federal government get involved with education spending...

[Kshartle]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

SS is up because we have more retirees in general... not an overall growth in dependency.

The most recent spike is obviously a natural result of a financial crisis followed by recession and rampant unemployment.

SS is dependancy. It is welfare no matter what the government calls it.

There is no trust fund. It's empty. It's a pay-as-you-go system.

The trust fund, as far as I know...is filled with T-bonds, IOUs from the government. I know some people think this is as good as money. That is laughable. That's like me writing myself a check for 1 million and claiming I'm a millionaire. If the asset is the same size as the liability there is nothing there. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

[Kshartle]

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

[Kshartle]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

It's called "failure to state".

It's an argumentative tactic that permits someone to disagree without ever explaining why the other party is wrong or stating a concrete position.

It's frustrating.

Please prove me wrong. I beg to be proved wrong so I can learn.

[moda0306]

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

They would have spent most of it .